OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little option under intellectual property and agreement law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage might apply but are mostly unenforceable, wiki.rolandradio.net they say.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, dokuwiki.stream they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with queries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to rapidly and inexpensively train a model that's now almost as excellent.

The Trump administration's top AI czar said this training procedure, macphersonwiki.mywikis.wiki called "distilling," amounted to copyright theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek may have inappropriately distilled our models."

OpenAI is not saying whether the company prepares to pursue legal action, instead promising what a spokesperson described "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our innovation."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you took our content" premises, just like the grounds OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in a continuous copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York Times and other news outlets?

BI postured this concern to professionals in innovation law, who said difficult DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill struggle for OpenAI now that the content-appropriation shoe is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a difficult time showing an intellectual property or copyright claim, these legal representatives said.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - meaning the answers it produces in reaction to queries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School stated.

That's since it's unclear whether the answers ChatGPT spits out qualify as "imagination," he stated.

"There's a teaching that says creative expression is copyrightable, but facts and concepts are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, addsub.wiki stated.

"There's a substantial question in intellectual residential or commercial property law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute innovative expression or if they are always vulnerable truths," he included.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and declare that its outputs are safeguarded?

That's not likely, the legal representatives said.

OpenAI is currently on the record in The New York Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is a permitted "fair use" exception to copyright defense.

If they do a 180 and vmeste-so-vsemi.ru inform DeepSeek that training is not a fair usage, "that might come back to sort of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you just saying that training is fair usage?'"

There may be a difference between the Times and DeepSeek cases, Kortz included.

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news articles into a design" - as the Times accuses OpenAI of doing - "than it is to turn outputs of a model into another design," as DeepSeek is stated to have done, Kortz stated.

"But this still puts OpenAI in a pretty tricky scenario with regard to the line it's been toeing relating to reasonable use," he added.

A breach-of-contract suit is more likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based claim, though it comes with its own set of issues, stated Anupam Chander, who teaches innovation law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

The terms of service for Big Tech chatbots like those established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their content as training fodder for a completing AI model.

"So possibly that's the lawsuit you may perhaps bring - a contract-based claim, not an IP-based claim," Chander stated.

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you gained from my design to do something that you were not enabled to do under our agreement."

There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service require that most claims be resolved through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for lawsuits "to stop unauthorized usage or abuse of the Services or copyright violation or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, however, prazskypantheon.cz experts said.

"You need to understand that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are most likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was describing a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Expert System Terms of Use Restrictions," by Stanford Law's Mark A. Lemley and Peter Henderson of Princeton University's Center for Infotech Policy.

To date, "no model creator has in fact attempted to enforce these terms with monetary penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is most likely for great factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That's in part since design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal minimal option," it says.

"I believe they are likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts typically won't enforce arrangements not to complete in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."

Lawsuits in between celebrations in various countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always tricky, Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles and morphomics.science won a judgment from an US court or arbitrator, "in order to get DeepSeek to turn over money or stop doing what it's doing, the enforcement would boil down to the Chinese legal system," he said.

Here, OpenAI would be at the grace of another incredibly complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and corporate rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the founding of the US.

"So this is, a long, complicated, filled procedure," Kortz added.

Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They might have used technical measures to block repeated access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would also hinder typical consumers."

He included: "I do not believe they could, or should, have a legitimate legal claim against the searching of uncopyrightable details from a public website."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not instantly react to a request for comment.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to use techniques, including what's called distillation, to try to replicate innovative U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, informed BI in an statement.